More on Puppies and 2016

Will Sad Puppies Fade?

I think people’s expectations is that with new nomination rules and the size of the 2015 No Award vote that the Puppy campaigns will fade out over time. Some people will carry on with the angst and resentment but in general people will move on to other things.

However what will happen if the Puppies score a victory of some kind? This is harder to answer. First of all the Puppies are prone to claim retrospective victories of one kind of another. Vox Day’s Rabid Puppies claimed that the multiple No Awards in the 2015 Hugos were actually a victory for them as their intent is to destroy the Hugo Awards and/or it established some kind of precedent or gave Vox Day some kind of moral permission. Larry Coreia has claimed that the failure of Sad Puppies 2 was also some kind of victory in so far as it ‘proved’ his point about the Hugo voters and a bias against right wing authors. Lastly Vox Day (again) has claimed the Best Novel Hugo for The Three Body Problem was a victory for Rabid Puppies because Vox had publicly preferenced the book first and because it won by a narrow margin against The Goblin Emperor and Ancillary Sword.

However, I think it is safe to say that each of those victories were effectively (and affectively) hollow ones. The Puppies clearly didn’t feel or act particularly victorious, in so far as they were emboldened by those events it was by a desire to avenge the outcomes rather than celebrate them with further victories.

Consequently I believe the Puppy campaigns will not be emboldened by any kind of token or if-you-look-at-it-this-way kind of win. For example, imagine the Puppy campaigns nominate Cixin Liu’s The Dark Forest* and it goes on to win on the basis of both Puppy and non-Puppy votes – will the Pups feel emboldened? Well it may demonstrate a way to achieve political power in the Hugos by the best means a cohesive minority of voters CAN achieve power – by becoming King Makers i.e. by choosing were to apply their votes among otherwise broadly popular candidates and thus disproportionately influencing the result beyond their numbers. The problem with being King Makers in this mode is that their brand is toxic (so winners will tend to eschew their supporter rather than show gratitude) and it doesn’t achieve any of their objectives. The Rabid’s want to fight SJWs, the Sad’s want to restore balance (in the Fox News sense) and both want to promote people they approve of. Populist movements do not survive making compromises with the establishment.

The kind of victories that embolden the Puppies are ones that have the right AFFECT – the ones that make them feel like that their enemies will feel upset – that is a bit convoluted but that is the best way of describing the emotional stakes. The outcome that Puppies need to fuel the fire is one that they see as being upsetting to the ‘CHORFS’ or ‘SJWs’ or Tor books. An obvious case in point was the sweep of nominations revealed last April – while a tactical disaster for the Puppies (peaking too early, mobilising non-Puppy votes) it certainly emboldened them even if the scale of the sweep of nominations was probably unexpected.

So what sort of things might extend the life span of the Puppy campaigns? I should note these aren’t what *I* would regard as meaning the Puppies had ‘won’ but rather what Puppies themselves will feel happy about.

Ancillary Mercy not getting nominated. Again it won’t matter why (e.g. a strong field of other nominations, Ann Leckie overtly asking for people not nominate it**)

Something they imagine to be SJW-head-explody being nominated. The most likely candidate is John C Wright’s Somewither book or Michael Z Williamson. The anthology There Will be War X edited by Jerry Pournelle as a best related or a new story from it (mainly reprints I think) might also be seen as head-explode or discombobulating (published by Vox Day’s company but edited by a notable author)

A stealth puppy nomination – this is an unlikely scenario. It works like this: a person has their work nominated, possibly not even on a Puppy slate per-se and POST nominations aligns themselves with the Puppy campaign. The most likely case of this would be a veteran-author who has issues with the current state of play. I think the odds of this are very low.

Nominations that will be hollow victories (i.e. they will make noise about them but it will all be a bit meh)

They nominate something everybody else is nominating. For example Andy Weir for a Campbell Award.

They get multiple nominations but primarily in very low voting categories. For example a Puppy sweep of Best Fancast will be hailed by the Puppies as a victory or as brilliant tactical move that will force the SJWs (or whatever acronym they have fixated on) to No Award/Burn Down/Nuke from Orbit that category thus destroying it forever and ever until next year.

Awards

Winning a category with something they regard as head-explodey. Unlikely but yes, a victory of that kind will embolden them. The more notable the category the better. Best Fancast probably not so much, Best Novel big time. However it needs to be a designated head-explode win. Compromise is poisonous to populist campaigns.

A designated relatively popular ‘SJW’ work (or person) of some kind ending up below No Award because of Puppy votes. A case of ‘see how you like it’. Unlikely.

A super-stealth Puppy victory. Similar to the above, but the person doesn’t announce how great the Puppies are until after they win.

Awards that will be hollow victories

Adopted post-nomination Puppies winning something. For example the Three Body Problem was an adopted puppy that the Rabid’s claimed as their own despite its broad support by non-Puppies. This is the easiest way to claim a victory.

Adopted pre-nomination Puppies winning something. For example, if the Pups nominate Seveneves*** because of its bold practical engineering aspects and the human genetics/races aspect of the final part (which looks a bit SJW-head explodey but isn’t) then there is a good chance it will get a nomination on the basis of Pup and non-Pup votes. In the final ballot it is not likely to win (you have to love it to like it and that is not a good basis for winning over non-fans who haven’t read it already) but it might if there is a significant and disciplined Puppy vote for it. A book like Seveneves which is likely to engender a very mixed response is a good candidate for a minority faction to act as Kingmakers. However, this isn’t going to embolden the Puppies much as it doesn’t tap into the populist energy they need. Deals, compromises, strategy are a poor fit with the Sad Puppies and for the Rabid Puppies this kind of victory doesn’t help any of their objectives.

Forcing somebody off the ballot by virtue of toxic endorsements. This occurred unintentionally in 2015, with people like Marko Kloos and Annie Bellet withdrawing in protest at being on slates they didn’t ask for. Sad Puppies 4 has overtly said they won’t be asking people’s permission to be on their list (which makes sense if it is just a list but which is unethical if it is a more overt slate/campaign) but ad Puppy . Rabid Puppies may well do something like this just out of mischief – the idea being that then those nominees come under pressure for people opposed to Vox and the Rabids can shout ‘come see the repression inherent in the system!’. Nasty and trollish but not emboldening for them.

How to react? I think people picking and choosing and reacting in a diverse and not even consistent way but with a degree of common purpose is the best meta-strategy. The Sad Puppy campaign is populist and it can’t survive compromise and is self-limiting. That doesn’t mean it is harmless but it requires people to weather the storm.

The Rabid campaign is more inherently trollish – it seeks to make its opponents into puppets the way toxic trolls like to do i.e. infer that if they do X their opponents feel obliged to do Y and that therefore they have somehow hacked the human psyche and they have become puppet master who can make you do Y. the dilemma is that overtly not doing Y is also a bad move (because then they’ve ‘made’ you not do Y and also ‘made’ you not act in your best interest which maybe was Y), ignoring them (Do Not Feed the Trolls) is a bad move with more persistent and damaging trolls as it tends to cause them to act more outrageously, and finally, actually doing Y is a bad idea because then your behavior is predictable and can be manipulated. This dilemma is why trolls think they are brilliant Xanatos-gambitting super-geniuses who can win because of multiple victory conditions. The right response is doing what people did last year – a non deterministic mix of an inconsistent bunch of stuff on the general theme of really not putting up with stupid troll-games. People should not ignore Vox Day’s campaign but everybody needs to remember that they are not OBLIGED to react in any specific way to whatever he does.

The final issue is Baen Books. Arguably much of the puppy narrative dates back to the 2007 Hugo Awards. The year before Jim Baen, prolific editor and founder of Baen books had died and there was a campaign to have him awarded Best Editor Long Form Hugo and for Baen books to get some other wins or at least nominations. Participation in the Hugo Awards was at an all time low (it got better prior to the first Puppy campaign) and the publishing crisis was on the horizon. In the end the campaign was a damp-squib and to add insult to injury perennial Puppy hate figure, Tor editor Patrick Nielsen-Hayden beat Jim Baen for the editor Hugo.

Baen with a number of right-of-centre authors (although far from exclusively right of centre) and with a reputation as highly independent publisher has received a lot of praise from Puppies. Notably Larry Corriea (SP1 & 2), Brad Torgersen (SP3) and Sarah Hoyt (SP4) have all been published by Baen. Head of Baen, Toni Weisskopf did not overtly align herself with the Sad Puppies but did in 2004 publish a long essay at Sarah Hoyt’s blog that covered many key puppy themes including the notion of SF Awards as being part of the US culture wars.

Baen may act long term as lingering reservoir of puppy-ideals either within its own online community (Baen’s Bar) or simply by social networks of like minded authors. However, as 2015 showed, as a commercial entity there is no long term benefit to Baen to be associated to closely with a toxic campaign.

*[They might not, as he said not supportive things about slates and he is published by Tor]
**[I don’t believe she has said that]
***[This is an example, in reality Vox Day didn’t like Seveneves and it isn’t likely to support it]

The point of all the Sad Puppies campaigns, from the beginning, was to demonstrate the politicaly Left and generally incestuous nature of the Hugo Awards. The case to be tested was: insiders win, outsiders don’t. Authors and works that lean Right don’t get to be insiders. People who ceaselessly look for asses to kiss do. [cough Redshirts! cough]

This has now been amply demonstrated four years in a row. 2015 is was the best demonstration so far. Ass-terisks? Oh yeah.

2016 we rub your noses in it. 2017, probably even more rubbing. I’ve got money to spend on some vigorous nose rubbing, for sure. The extent to which people like me are tired of seeing shit like “The Day The World Turned Upside Down” win a Hugo is -large-. I’ll be satisfied if something decent wins for a change, or if the likes of you finally admit you’re primarily motivated by hate and fear of ‘low class beer swilling rednecks with guns’, such as your caricature of Larry Correia, and don’t really give a fuck about science, fiction or science fiction. Rehabilitating the Hugo into an acme of something worthwhile would be nice, seeing it exposed for the party favor it actually is works just as well.

The extended future I’m sure will be one of rules lawyering, wherein the CHORFS who care about such things will spend much time and effort excluding anyone who isn’t a CHORF. When that process has concluded, everyone will know how full of shit the “fans” of WorldCon are, and how little their opinion in the form of the Hugo awards matters.

Kind of a sad end for something that used to be cool, but not unexpected. CHORFs gonna CHORF.

/The point of all the Sad Puppies campaigns, from the beginning, was to demonstrate the politicaly Left and generally incestuous nature of the Hugo Awards/

Odd then that this ‘point’ tended to be applied retrospectively. I don’t think a rather simplistic campaign initially titled ‘How To Get Larry a Hugo’ (ETA: sorry ‘How to get Correia nominated for a Hugo’) is some subtle analysis of political bias. None of the Sad Puppy campaigns managed to demonstrate what you claim – primarily by mixing in the problem of slates and campaigning, with mediocre to really poor work and then adding Vox Day & John C Wright into the mix.

Of late I’ve seen many pro-Puppy comments that seek to rewrite history – a futile task in a world were with a click of link people can go read what was written and see what was nominated. If Larry runs something that he overtly calls a ‘stacking campaign’ you don’t need secret leftwing conspiracies to explain why people didn’t like it.

/I’ll be satisfied if something decent wins for a change/

What like ‘Zombie Nation’? Seriously Phantom? Or ‘Wisdom from My Internet’? Or the unintentionally hilarious Parliament of Beast and Birds? Or the error ridden and confused ‘Why Science is Never Settled’?

As for The Day the World Turned Upside Down – I also didn’t think it was great but without the Sad Puppy campaign it probably would not have won.

/if the likes of you finally admit you’re primarily motivated by hate and fear of ‘low class beer swilling rednecks with guns’, such as your caricature of Larry Correia, and don’t really give a fuck about science, fiction or science fiction/

I portray Larry with guns because Larry portrays himself with guns. I portray MYSELF as beer swilling – have you even LOOKED at this blog and counted the number of *beer* related posts? As caring about science, fiction and science fiction again I submit this blog at which you are commenting. You will find plenty of reviews of SF/F works as well as guides as to where to find more.

Instead of facing facts and reality, you are arguing against what you imagine others are like and against phantom arguments not made. Look at your comment above – you fail to address a single issue raised in the post and provide instead a cut-n-paste Puppy-rant. You can do better than that Phantom – comments like that sell yourself short.

When Larry started Sad Puppies 1 it was called ‘How to get Correia nominated for a Hugo” Although he makes some political digs his emphasis is primarily on the ‘literati’.
As for Vox Day, his separate campaign began last year but her was a Sad Puppy 2 nominee and of course part of the quasi-ironic Evil League of Evil.
The idea that Sad Puppies 2 was primarily about *proving* bias the initial announcement (here http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/01/07/back-from-texas-and-now-it-is-sad-puppies-season-2/ ) was again primarily about “sad eyed pulp novelists who have been abused by the literati elite.” – a theme picked up again in the more definitive launch of SP2 “This year Warbound, the last book of the Grimnoir trilogy is eligible. And since FDR is actually one of the villains this book will make literati heads explode!Only you can make literati heads explode.”
So yes ‘retrospective’: SP1 and SP2 were not framed as being about proving some political point but about winning Larry (the Larry + others) a Hugo. Did he have some super secret other motive? I don’t know or don’t care – I’m reporting what he *said*. Maybe he didn’t want a Hugo and wanted to prove the moon was made of cheese – either way what he said and what he did don’t fit ‘proving political bias’ and do fit ‘trying to get a Hugo’.
SP2 ends with Larry coming ahead of No Award, which is an OK showing in a year with a strong field (including The Wheel of Time). How that proves ‘bias’ is a mystery.

thirteenthletter00: Out of curiosity, what did you think of the Hugo for “Your Hate Mail Will Be Graded”?

Clearly, you haven’t bothered to read both works, if you’re trying to equate them. Scalzi’s book was his own original writing, and was SFF-related. MZW’s “book” was not his own work; it was a non-original collection of lame jokes and political screeds collected from e-mail, the Internet, and rec.arts.notfunny.

Wow, I guess you must have missed “I think people picking and choosing and reacting in a diverse and not even consistent way” i.e. I wrote a piece saying people should *NOT* act in lockstep.
But, don’t let what I said get in the way of what you want to imagine I said 🙂

I didn’t even realize the Hugos were something normal people like myself could vote in before the articles about sad puppies hit in 2015. To be honest, I had become tired of science fiction/fantasy decades prior; my interest was revitalized when I exposed myself to new, unconventional authors as a result of all this and I am sure I’m not the only one.

I don’t understand why the puppies aren’t embraced as saving the industry.

Well I agree that the subsequent publicity and kerfuffle probably sparked a lot of interest from many people. Sad Puppies certainly helped Tor’s bottom line – although I’m not sure that was their plan.

Anyway, I’m glad you found new authors you like. That is always a plus.

It is truly hilarious how poorly you people misunderstand your opposition. Last year, you gave Vox Day exactly what he wanted. I know this because of how it affected me. You see, I was Sad. I just wanted a fair contest. I just wanted to know that politics did not rule this process, and that good stories could be rewarded even if they neither rode a heavy leftist message (like “If This Were Science Fiction, My Audience”) nor were by a highly-placed in-grouper (like Redshirts).

Instead of this, your crowd chose not only to burn down the 2015 Hugos, but to crow about it as if it were some fantastic achievement.

These vicious, childish antics showed me who you were, and showed me what you think about us WrongFans, and I understand now. I used to be sad. I wanted a fair vote and a seat at the table . You and your kind have driven me rabid. Now…now I just want to burn the voting booth and smash the table. You gave your worst enemy exactly what he wanted. Good work.

Maybe read the comment again, then. But if that doesn’t help, let me give it a try.

When the Puppies happened — and I’m not even talking about 3, I’m talking about 2 and 1 — you guys didn’t just push different titles or talk about writing quality: you freaked out and embarked on a massive slander campaign in the news media, accusing all manner of people of being racists, misogynists, and who-knows-what-ists. Then, when you managed to rope in enough votes to No Award the Sad Puppy nominees, you publicly danced on their graves and handed out wooden asterisks (while hilariously claiming that you had no idea what they represented.) What did you think was going to happen next?

You may have successfully demoralized a lot of Sad Puppies, or convinced them that the Hugo will never stand for something they care about so they’ll walk away. Good job, I guess. You also radicalized at least a fraction of them, and made it so you are going to be fighting Vox Day and his radicalized minions until the end of time. I imagine you’ll “win” each time, but a little humility, a little “People can nominate who we want, I’m sure they were sincere, we’ll see how the voting goes,” a little “science fiction has always had cranks and jerks, we’re not interested in purges” and you never would have had to fight at all.

You really have absolutely zero ability to empathize with someone you disagree with, don’t you? You completely lack the capacity to say, “How would this look like from their point of view?” We understand you, but disagree with you. You can’t be bothered to understand us.

Your side effectively said, “We would rather burn our own house down rather than let you sit down with us for dinner.” Some of us who were a bit more inclined to reconciliation heard you and said, “Fine, we’ll help you burn it down.”

“The house didn’t burn down. Some stories that weren’t liked by voters didn’t win awards. That isnt the end of the world.”

Oh, and also you guys smeared innumerable innocent people in the worldwide media as sexists/racists/homophobes/terrorists for disagreeing with you about this trivial literary award that you’re insisting isn’t important. But never mind that part, right?

thirteenthletter00: you guys smeared innumerable innocent people in the worldwide media as sexists/racists/homophobes/terrorists

The people who had said racist, sexists, misogynistic, homophobic, or otherwise horrifying things were called out on it. Their quotes were well-documented. If they didn’t want their racism, sexism, misogyny, and homophobia pointed out, they shouldn’t have said those things.

Zaklog: You really have absolutely zero ability to empathize with someone you disagree with, don’t you? You completely lack the capacity to say, “How would this look like from their point of view?” We understand you, but disagree with you. You can’t be bothered to understand us.

You know, if someone comes over to my house, barges in, complains that they don’t like the way I’ve decorated the my house, turns over tables, and smashes the crockery, why should I be expected to empathize with them? Hell, no, I’ll call the cops and do whatever else it takes to get rid of people who can’t behave like decent, respectful human beings. At that point, I don’t give a damn what their point-of-view is — it does NOT entitle them to behave that way.

If the Puppies had come in acting like mature adults, not slating, making decisions for themselves, and behaved like decent human beings, the Worldcon members would have treated them that way.

Instead, the Puppies announced that they intended to come in and engage in deliberate wrecking. The Puppies behaved like disrespectful assholes from Day 1 and then complained because the red carpet wasn’t rolled out for them. And you’re wondering why they weren’t welcomed with open arms? Seriously?

You know, if someone comes over to my house, barges in, complains that they don’t like the way I’ve decorated the my house

Your house? I didn’t realize you owned science fiction. I apologize. I thought it was the province of everyone who enjoyed reading science fiction. I thought the Hugos were supposed to represent the best of science fiction, all of it. That’s how it’s been talked about for a long time. Apparently I was mistaken about that. Apparently, my reading H.G. Wells’s The Invisible Man at age ten doesn’t qualify me as a science fiction fan. Apparently reading almost the entirety of Asimov’s s.f. output doesn’t qualify me as a fan. Apparently being brought near tears by Speaker for the Dead, even after multiple re-reads, does not mean I’m a s.f. fan. Apparently, having read, played, watched (TV & film), and listened to The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy does not mean I’m an s.f. fan.

I apologize. We thought this house belonged to science fiction fans. Apparently, JJ, it belongs to you. You should have made that clear from the outset. If the Hugo’s had been clearly labelled The Award for the Best Leftist S.F., all of this confusion could have been avoided.

Does that include telling Brad Torgersen that he married his black wife as a shield for his racism?

That isn’t what was said. I can’t tell if these misunderstandings on your part are deliberate or honest. In case of the latter… You can be married to someone of a different race and still say or do racist things. Pointing to your black wife as proof that you can’t possibly have any race issues is using your wife’s race as a shield. That is what Bread Torgersen was accused of. It’s also what he did.

Just because someone says “that thing you said is racist” doesn’t mean they are saying you are a terrible person. There are no pure and innocent non-racists. Everyone has issues with prejudice. Calling people out for their issues when they publicly display them is a thing some people do.

Zaklog the Great: Your house? I didn’t realize you owned science fiction. I apologize. I thought it was the province of everyone who enjoyed reading science fiction. I thought the Hugos were supposed to represent the best of science fiction, all of it. That’s how it’s been talked about for a long time. Apparently I was mistaken about that. I apologize. We thought this house belonged to science fiction fans. Apparently, JJ, it belongs to you.

You are indeed mistaken. The Hugo Awards represent what the Worldcon members like, not “all of science fiction”. The Worldcon members own the Hugo Awards — and that’s what we’re talking about here, the Hugo Awards, not “science fiction”. The Puppies came over to the Worldcon members’ house, complained about how they’d been giving out their own Hugo Awards, and declared that they were going to wreck the Hugos because they didn’t like how the Worldcon members had been doing the awards program owned by Worldcon members for the last 60 years.

So now that you realize that you were mistaken, you’re going to quit harassing Worldcon members and trying to wreck their Hugo Awards, right?

The Hugo Awards represent what the Worldcon members like, not “all of science fiction”.

And that’s how it’s always been sold, right? It has always been very clearly described as just the award by Worldcon which has nothing to do with the rest of the science fiction field, right? And, for that matter, Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.

“When I say the Hugos belong to the worldcon, I’m talking about the literal legal status of the award. But I also know that one of the biggest reasons the rocket is magic is because it spiritually belongs to all of us who love SF.” – Teresa Nielsen-Hayden

zaklog: And that’s how it’s always been sold, right? It has always been very clearly described as just the award by Worldcon which has nothing to do with the rest of the science fiction field, right? And, for that matter, Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.

Oh, please, stop trying to move the goalposts; you’re so transparent.

The quote you provided does not contradict my statement that the Hugo Awards represent the SFF choices of the Worldcon members who own the Hugos, not the choices of everyone who reads SFF. In fact, it supports it. It specifically says that the Hugos are legally owned by Worldcon — not by the whole world.

So yes, what the Puppies did was come smashing into Worldcon’s house, complaining that they didn’t like how Worldcon was doing their own awards.

And that’s where your argument falls apart, isn’t it? Because if you have to admit the truth — if you have to admit that the Hugo Awards are owned by the Worldcon members and represent the choices of the Worldcon members and not of everyone in the world who reads SFF, then it’s clear that your claim that Worldcon is “trying to impose their view on the genre” is false, and that what the Puppies did was engage in trying to wreck someone else’s thing.

Yes. Sad Puppies 1 and 2 were “Larry wants a Hugo” campaigns and because rabble-rousing helped Larry sell books. Recruiting other authors to help was so they could sell books. They have a target audience of right wing simpletons and they go about stirring them up in a crusade so they can sell books. Does that make the sad/rabid puppies seem stupid? Yep.

Sarah Hoyt is busy trying to improve her sells now with impassion pleas like:

“What they don’t realize is that they’re attacking the people who read in favor of the imaginary “other” who will be so refined and perfect. They also don’t realize that Sad Puppies was the only thing PROTECTING them from Vox. I don’t know if we still are enough to protect them, and at this point I know any number of people who say “May G-d have mercy on their souls” rather than try to defend them.”

🙂 Ha ha. That’s what it was. Just trying to protect the Worldcon fans from VD.

How long pups will continue to invest $60 to stick it to SJW (for the most part these are not SFF Fans) is anyone’s guess but with each defeat there is less and less reason to do so. Last years defeat was crushing and disproved every reason for ballot freeping false ( and reasons shifted with the wind).

My guess with EPH the nomination loophole gets plugged up. After this year slates lose a lot of their power. I would think in two years the puppies will still be riled up and buying books from wingnut authors but fans will stop paying attention to them and the Hugo awards will return to normalcy.

I suggested at Brad’s place that the wingnuts were not doing well at Goodreads either. No Hugos and no Goodreads choice awards. Why don’t the pups go freep those awards. Vox took the challenge, launched a campaign at Goodreads and managed to get himself banned in less than 36 hours. I just LMAO.

These pups never learned and cannot be house broken. But at least they bark from a distance.

zaklog: Instead of this, your crowd chose not only to burn down the 2015 Hugos, but to crow about it as if it were some fantastic achievement.

Oh, please. What a Drama Queen: “burn down the Hugos”.

Nothing was “burnt down”. Nothing was “destroyed”. And no one is “crowing” about having to No Award several categories. What people are doing is sighing in relief that trophies were not given to works which were not Hugo-worthy — something which would have indeed tarnished the Hugo’s prestige and reputation.

zaklog: I wanted a fair vote and a seat at the table.

You got a seat at the table. You got to nominate. You got a fair vote. You got to vote.

The fact that the results of that fair vote were not what you personally wanted does not make it any less fair. The results were what the vast majority of Worldcon voters — who are, incidentally, the owners of the Hugo Awards — wanted.

Actually, I have read Redshirts and it is basically an okay Star Trek fanfic with a self-indulgent, look-how-important-and-compassionate-writers-are bit at the end. It’s not bad, but it’s not great either, and it absolutely does not belong in a class with Dune, Ender’s Game, Neuromancer, or The Forever War (all of which I’ve also read).

Zaklog: So, you didn’t like Redshirts then? Fair enough. That’s what we would call “a difference of opinion” or perhaps “a difference in tastes.” As I see it, the only possible way to resolve it would be to hold some sort of fair and equitable vote, perhaps among people who read a lot of SF books, and see what the aggregate opinion is. How’s that sound to you?

I’ve read Redshirts. I have the hardcover. I was hoping for something like Old Man’s War, or Zoe’s Tale, which I enjoyed. Instead, I got a novel that I can’t remember at all. It made no impact of any kind. It was so bland I’d have to go read it again to remember what happened. I can’t say that it was anything at all, because I can’t recall it. Zoe’s Tale, that one I remember.

That’s the “quality” you’re braying about, and that is the reason we are all pointing at you and laughing. The posturing is quite amusing, pray continue sir.

Incidentally the reason people go after John Scalzi is that he is an annoying little hipster dick in his on-line incarnation. He argues like a troll, hair-splitting would be a kind description.

Then I would say that you and I read different books. I re-read it last June, and this is what I posted about it:
————————————————-
And now, after re-reading it, I remember why I liked the book so much: because it has the same characteristics as Connie Willis’ Firewatch and Doomsday Book.

We get to know the characters; we see the triumphs and failures of their fairly unremarkable lives; we get a glimpse of their hopes and their dreams and their souls. They live and then they die. They are unextraordinary and never make it into the history books (or perhaps, end up nothing more than a name in red font appearing in someone else’s Wikipedia entry).

And yet, and yet… they are nevertheless important as human beings. For the time during which they live, and the people whose lives they intersect, they make a difference. They matter.

I think that is such a powerful message, especially for those of us who’ve lived long enough to get a realistic perception of our relative importance to the world and to history — that it’s okay not to be Rosalind Franklin, or Jonas Salk, or Martin Luther King, or Sally Ride. That it’s enough to make a place in the world and make the lives of the people around us a little bit nicer.
————————————————-
Now, if you think it was only “okay fanfic”, that’s fine. But when a book can make me feel that way, I will definitely say it deserved its place on the Hugo ballot.

And clearly, a lot of other Worldcon members agreed with me.

I personally think Ender’s Game is a failure as a book — because the message Card intended was that mindless genocide of the Other was not okay, that lack of knowledge of the consquences of one’s actions does not make one “innocent” — and yet the message that most fanboys who read the book get out it is “hell yeah, Ender’s a hero who kicks ass”.

I enjoyed Dune, but I don’t understand why some people hold it up as “The Best SF Book EVAR” — because in my opinion, it’s not. It’s a great book. But it’s not the greatest SF book ever written — not by a long shot. It’s downright tedious at points.

So when you complain that Redshirts is not in the same class as Dune or Ender’s Game, in my opinion, that’s a good thing.

In other words, different strokes for different folks, and just because you don’t think Redshirts is Hugo-worthy, it doesn’t make it so. According to the vast majority of Worldcon members, it is.

Yes, but both Ender’s Game and Dune opened up new world. Both of them created enormous spaces for the imagination to play in which had not existed before. Redshirts on the other hand, explicitly retreads old ground. And frankly, unless you can point to Card saying what message he intended, I’d suggest you stop trying to speak for him. I strongly doubt that you’re inclined to give someone like him a fair hearing.

That is a fair criticism of Redshirts. However it is a criticism that can be applied to tie-in works across the board. Now notably Sad Puppy campaigns have stated their aim of getting tie-in works nominated (not that they nominated any) – are you saying you disagree with that aspect of Sad Puppies?

Also on your own blog feel free to tell people what they cant discuss – on this blog you haven’t earned that privilege.

I predict this year’s Xanadu gambit is pedophilia in Fandom. When Castalia’s thinly-disguised, schizophrenic* attack on Scalzi and Delany marketed as an expose is no awarded, VD can crow about Fandom supporting pedophilia. If it somehow wins a Hugo, VD gets to crow about humiliating his arch-nemesis, with the bonus benefit of smearing a gay author.

* Within those five posts + appendices there actually is a disturbing report on a reprehensible period within at least SF Bay Area fan history. Couching that report within ridiculous attacks on Scalzi and Delany is VD’s Aristotlean genius at work.

I see two issues. First, snippets of his interviews are taken and extrapolated to accuse Delany of abusing children. Then there’s the article mostly dedicated to Delany where the author uses his _fiction_ against him, pretending the author’s sympathies lie with the repugnant main character. I haven’t read the Delany work in question, and I doubt most of the people reading that article have. They will simply believe what the article’s author wrote, because that’s the way people work (at least, that’s what VD is hoping). The Delany material is pure character assassination.

What makes it all just fucking incredibly awful and repulsive is that this character assassination (of both Delany and especially Scalzi, who’s never made any even slightly sketchy claims about his sexuality, or in any way acted as if he condoned rape or pedophilia) is juxtaposed with the Breen case of actual horrific abuses and disgusting fan behavior (as detailed in the breendoggle wiki). That is a serious issue, and VD, employing his pathetic 4gw “strategy,” exploits the actual horrors that took place just to further his personal vendetta, and to Xanadu it up so he can preen and chirp about how SJWs are all lying pedophiles. Anyone who would do that is the lowest of bottom feeding scum.

I had heard about Breen and MZB when that all came to light, but I hadn’t researched into it much. I don’t have a lot to do with cons or meet-ups, and I don’t have children. Given the horrific subject matter and it having ended years ago, I preferred to read only the outlines of what happened. One of the Castalia articles linked to the breendoggle wiki and I spent a horrified evening reading that. That’s when I realized just how awful VD is (and I was no fan before). He could actually have commissioned a serious look into child abuse within fandom, but instead stooped down to attack his enemies.

Kathodus is right, attacking Scalzi is where VD really tips his hand that his motivation in commissioning that article is just character assassination and score-settling, even though real and serious events are included. As a minor example, illustrating the Scalzi section with that photo of him in a regency dress as part of a charity drive is blatantly an attempt to have people go “hur hur purvurt” because the actual section on Scalzi is pure nonsense.

You are aware, right, that Delany’s novel Hogg is not without context, right? Delany was a member and enthusiastic supporter of NAMBLA. How many NAMBLA members do you think are not pedophiles?

Tell me also, do you think an adult who openly wishes for children to be more sexually active (including with adults) does not engage in such activities himself? Are you serious that none of this raises red flags for you?

If we didn’t know the rest of this, it might be reasonable to say that Hogg is evidence of nothing except that Delany wanted to shock his audience. We do know more. Your willful ignorance is disturbing, and frankly, exactly why those articles needed to be written.

Because as president of the SFWA, he has made himself an important figure in the field. The “expulsion” of Vox Day (which legally did not happen) made it clear that they now consider policing authors’ morals part of their job, and he has not only not tried to exclude pedophiles, he has rewarded them. Now, if they did not pretend to kick out Vox Day for badthink, they could plausibly claim they are strictly a professional organization with no interest in their members’ other activities. But they did. That changed the rules. The SFWA (up to and including the president) is accountable for the behavior of the authors they support.

Because as president of the SFWA, he has made himself an important figure in the field. The “expulsion” of Vox Day (which legally did not happen) made it clear that they now consider policing authors’ morals part of their job, and he has not only not tried to exclude pedophiles, he has rewarded them.

I challenge you to come up with a flimsier, less honest excuse for VD’s ongoing sobfest about Scalzi.

You brought up the expulsion of Vox Day. Seriously has there been one pro-puppy commentator here the last few days who could keep their story straight from one comment to another?

Yes, moron, I brought up Day’s expulsion to explain why the SFWA can no longer claim to be a morally neutral organization which has no interest in its members non-professional activities. Geez, what is it about being an SJW that causes a drop of 20 IQ points? Since that time, any award of an author not only endorses his work, but also his character, and the SFWA, led by Scalzi, chose to award a NAMBLA member who wrote a book about a teenaged boy’s adventures with a rapist-for-hire.

Zaklog, you can claim what you like about what you think the actions of the SWFA mean, but they don’t have to pay any attention.
If you or anyone else has evidence of someone committing a criminal offense, I urge you to take it immediately to the relevant authorities. Simply bloviating about it here exposes that your interest in it is nothing more than as fuel for VD’s one-way feud against Scalzi and various others, and trivialising a serious issue by using it in this way is reprehensible.

Prior to SP3 I did not know who voted on Hugo Awards. I just knew that the Hugo Novels of the last 10 years were horrible and that I took them as a sign of “don’t read this.” Hugo’s became the SF version of literary awards given by English majors to boring, labored writing.

Now I found out I can nominate and vote for Hugos. Hopefully at some point Hugos will mean good novels again.

I also found out that some editors and authors have contempt for many of their readers. I have the information needed to keep my money away from them. (BTW – Scalzi is not a jerk. Scalzi’s discussion of the economics of publishing and writing are excellent. I don’t care for a lot of his politics – but he appreciates people who pay for his work. Chu is a jerk. Several Tor editors are super jerks. GRRM also seems like a nice guy. Vox Day is a jerk).

Baen. Baen. Baen. Profitable. Prints genres I like to read. Revolutionized ebook publishing and the business model for authors. Their monthly bundles make authors a lot of money that is not siphoned off to the channel of distribution (traditional retailers & amazon). Not giving Jim Baen a Hugo for his editing, building a highly profitable publishing house that releases tons of material, and his ability to put money in the pockets of authors – is a sign that Hugo SJWs are idiots.

Consider this: with a full on campaign Sad Puppies did not get Chuck Gannon on the ballot whereas in the supposed citial of SFWA sjw/tor/literati Nebula awards Gannon did get nominated.
I’m not saying pups would have been welcomed with open arms if the slates had been good but they would have won more allies.
(Apologies for typos – using my phone in a tent)

Airboy – “Not giving Jim Baen a Hugo”. Baen was nominated for a Hugo 8 times, which already puts him in an elite category. Why didn’t he win? Well, when he was editing Galaxy he was up against Ben Bova at Analog, who were the 800lb gorilla in the room. It’s hardly surprising that he didn’t win – it was Bova all the way, with the editors of the remaining two of the Big 3 magazines occasionally getting scraps.
He then moved in to book publishing with Ace, Tor and then founding Baen, and got more nominations without wins. Was that surprising? Well, no book editors won in that period at all – magazine and anthology editors had a total shut-out. That was why the eventual Long Form / Short Form split was done. Baen died in the first year of the new Long Form.
There was nothing against Jim Baen in any of that – he was and is a respected figure in SF.
As for your other reasons – profit, paying authors, etc – well that’s what all the editors and publishing houses did. Jim Baen wasn’t unique, but he was honoured along with the other great editors of his day.

And you wonder why we mock you. Nothing hilarious about that story at all. A bit sad, maybe. Certainly far more enjoyable than the Upside Down stupidity.

See, what you -really- want is to impose your taste on the genre. You are genuinely shocked and surprised that anyone would object.

For my money (as in, what books I paid money for in 2014) Monster Hunter Nemesis was what I wanted for a Hugo award. I liked it the best of what I read. I read a lot of books that year.

You can’t allow that. Your every fiber rebels against the idea of -anyone- liking that book, by that author.

Your problem now is that you’ve discovered there are a tremendous number of people like me, who like that kind of book. We are suddenly aware, thanks to Larry and Sad Puppies, that we don’t have to shut up and tolerate Camestros Felpatron’s taste in books. We can vote for what WE like.

And we did. Three times. And three times in a row, you FREAKED OUT. “How dare those unwashed rednecks invade MY holy precincts?!”

“Parliament of Beast and Birds” was overly-literary Christian message fiction. It was pretty much exactly what the Puppies claimed to hate. It was of interest only to those people heavily invested in Christian, and very much particuluarly Catholic, theology. Seriously, Phantom, how am I wrong in that? This story was one of the most puzzling to me of those on the Puppy slates.

I fucking hated “The Day the World Turned Upside Down.” I voted it below No Award. When I read it, I actually thought it was a Puppy pick, as it was whiny/borderline misogynist in a very MRA kind of way. I was surprised to find out after reading it that it was not a Puppy pick (I knew it was not a slated piece when I voted. The only thing I voted above No Award in that category was “The Triple Sun: A Golden Age Tale”, which I thought was pretty fun and lived up to its title.

In Best Related work, I voted Antonelli and Burnside above No Award.

In all editor categories I didn’t vote at all, because I didn’t have enough knowledge to do so.

Only Rolf Nelson and Eric S. Raymond went below No Award for me in the Campbell. Nelson’s story I read was storyless battle-porn. I’m not saying that’s necessarily a bad thing, but it just wasn’t interesting at all to me and I didn’t see why it would make him Campbell-worthy. Eric Raymond… that was a very strange pick. I just don’t get it.

In most categories I voted for one or two slated works, though I generally put them below No Award (because I thought they were maybe, possibly, at the very edge of Hugo worthy, and if enough people voted them above No Award, good for them – f’rinstance, Flow).

Sure, I’m repulsed at some of the actions and speech of people like Vox Day, John C. Wright, Lou Antonelli, Sarah Hoyt, Kate the Impaler, etc., etc., but (aside from maybe VD) that wouldn’t stop me from voting for their works if I thought they deserved it. That’s not the kind of world I live in.

Except clearly I imposed nothing and it was the puppy campaign that tried to impose their taste
You like monster hunter nemesis? That’s fine by me. I’ve done nothing to stop you liking it – neither has Worldcon nor the Hugos. What you are objecting to is OTHET PEOPLE not liking it as much as you do. Well sorry that my tastes arent yours but you dont get to claim to be oppressed because I read different books to you.

thephantom182: See, what you -really- want is to impose your taste on the genre. You are genuinely shocked and surprised that anyone would object. For my money (as in, what books I paid money for in 2014) Monster Hunter Nemesis was what I wanted for a Hugo award. I liked it the best of what I read. I read a lot of books that year. You can’t allow that. Your every fiber rebels against the idea of -anyone- liking that book, by that author.

Worldcon members have zero interest in “imposing their taste on the genre”. Worldcon members are simply interested in awarding their Hugos — you know, the program that Worldcon members created and nurtured for more than six decades, the awards program owned by Worldcon members — to the works that they like.

You are perfectly welcome to like the MHI books. What you are not welcome to do is to try to force all of the Worldcon members to like them (or any of the other books you like) and give them Hugos.

thephantom182: Your problem now is that you’ve discovered there are a tremendous number of people like me, who like that kind of book. We are suddenly aware, thanks to Larry and Sad Puppies, that we don’t have to shut up and tolerate Camestros Felpatron’s taste in books. We can vote for what WE like. And we did. Three times.

Yes, you did. Three times. And three times you discovered that the vast majority of Worldcon members do not agree with your tremendoustiny minority of Puppies.

No one is asking you to shut up. What Worldcon members are asking you to do is to respect their awards program and stop trying to game it — stop trying to force them to give their Hugo awards to things your tiny minority likes.

Kathodus said: “It was of interest only to those people heavily invested in Christian, and very much particuluarly Catholic, theology. Seriously, Phantom, how am I wrong in that?”

You’re not wrong. I didn’t think is was awesome, and I didn’t vote for it either. But neither did I rage-quit in the middle of it and delete it off my PC. Upside Down I certainly did do that. Making Parliament a more enjoyable story. It didn’t actively damage me when I read it.

I also didn’t read Ancilary whatever. I got a little way in, decided I didn’t want that in my brain and stopped. Not my pick for best in SF, but I don’t feel the need to build unflattering Lego caricatures of Anne Leckie, or slag her all over the interwebz for having the gall to get nominated in a fricking book award contest. I’m happy to see you share my approach.

CF said: “What you are objecting to is OTHET PEOPLE not liking it as much as you do.”

Yeah, you wish that was true. It isn’t though. Year after year, decade by decade, the Hugos has voted Upside Down-like dreck as the “best in science fiction”. Three years running, guys like me paid money and voted for… not that. Something else.

What are you doing about that? Freaking out. Putting up unflattering pictures of people you’ve never met, and who have never done you any harm.

Seriously. All I did was vote for stuff I liked. Bunch of us did. That was and remains the entire content of the Puppy Campaign: “Hey you guys, you can vote in this thing y’know.” I can? Hell yeah. So I did. That’s -all- I did.

The entire rest of the uproar is “fandom”, or maybe more accurately CHORFdom having a collective hissy and block-voting for Noah Ward. AKA what you accused me of doing. Hilarious!

Most fun I’ve had for fifty bucks in ages. I’m doing it again this year. Bunch of us are. Should be a giggle.

I didn’t rage-quit “The Day the World Turned Upside-Down”. I think I may have actually read it twice, to make sure I hated it. I read all of JCW’s allegorical fable once, then skimmed it a couple times trying to get if it was nominated as a “fuck you” to SJWs or if I was just missing something. There are Hugo-nominated works I didn’t read all of, but I didn’t rage-quit anything, I just ran out of fucks to give on various works and decided there was no way they were going to improve enough for me to vote for them.

@thephantom182
“I also didn’t read Ancilary whatever. I got a little way in, decided I didn’t want that in my brain and stopped. Not my pick for best in SF, but I don’t feel the need to build unflattering Lego caricatures of Anne Leckie, or slag her all over the interwebz for having the gall to get nominated in a fricking book award contest. I’m happy to see you share my approach.”

I’m curious what made you bounce off of Ancillary Justice (I assume it’s Justice, that’s the first one). I could see it not being everyone’s cuppa, but I haven’t really been able to grok the extreme hatred people have thrown at it, aside from a reaction to some reviewers’ love of the gender thing. Said gender thing, despite what maybe some extreme “SJWs” were imagining, and what it seems a lot of right-wing sci-fi fans assumed, ultimately turns out to be one of many details that build to one of the major, extremely sci-fi themes in the series and has nothing whatsoever to do with eradicating masculinity or turning everyone female, or intersectional Alinskyite whatever, and a lot more with the concept of alien species.

I’m not sure how your reaction to Ann Leckie’s novel has anything to do with building Lego caricatures or slagging her for being nominated. It seems you’re saying that’s what slated Puppy authors suffered, but as far as the Lego caricature playing cards, that seems to be solely of major Puppy players, and Leckie is an author, not a major… non-Puppy player (like, say, David Gerrold, or Irene Gallo). Non-puppy-wise, most of the reading about the Hugos I did last year was on File 770, where I didn’t see a lot of vitriol aimed at authors merely for being nominated. For instance, Jim Butcher wasn’t on the receiving end of any significant animosity that I recall (not on File770, which, like I said, was my main source for news regarding the Hugos, outside the Puppy sites, which, strangely enough, I read quite a bit of). Of course, there were various slated authors who took an active part in the flare-up – Antonelli, Wright, Green, etc. – whose words were responded to, but they were all obviously delighting in the drama.

And the Lego caricatures don’t really seem mean-spirited to me. They aren’t aimed at me, so I’m not trying to say eg. Correia shouldn’t be offended, as I’m not him and don’t know how he feels, and if he is bummed out by them, that’s not good, but they seem to me to be somewhat light-hearted. Camestros also made Lego caricatures of various Puppy-bite victims (or Puppy Kickers, depending on your perspective). And I fail to see how Correia’s caricature is offensive at all – I could see a Puppy supporter doing the same and Puppies digging it. Unflattering – you’re just not going to get a flattering Lego caricature. They aren’t built that way.

“For my money (as in, what books I paid money for in 2014) Monster Hunter Nemesis was what I wanted for a Hugo award. I liked it the best of what I read. I read a lot of books that year.”

“Your problem now is that you’ve discovered there are a tremendous number of people like me, who like that kind of book. We are suddenly aware, thanks to Larry and Sad Puppies, that we don’t have to shut up and tolerate Camestros Felpatron’s taste in books. We can vote for what WE like.”

Pups always remind me of guys that used to try to sell me Amway.

“Nemisis” was up for the Goodreads Choice Award in the category of Horror. It got 2K votes and came in 10th in that category. “Lock in” (By John Scalzi) was 2nd in the SF category with 19K votes and behind “The Martian”. He was knocked off the ballot because pups decided to freep the nomination process. See pups think Worldcon Fans are “wrong fans”, reading “wrong books” and having “wrong fun”. To them SJWs are not real fans.

Correia writes OK gun porn and if you want to read it, go for it. He isn’t great but he isn’t bad and probably represents the most marketable of the Puppy Leaders. He is great at niche marketing – look at how he got you stirred up. If you want to nominate things like “Nemisis”, go for it. It won’t win but if you like it go ahead.

BTW – Andy Weir who wrote “The Martian” could have been nominated for the Campbell award. But by freeping the ballet, pups kept him off the ballet. Congratulations.

Kathodus said: “I’m curious what made you bounce off of Ancillary Justice (I assume it’s Justice, that’s the first one). I could see it not being everyone’s cuppa, but I haven’t really been able to grok the extreme hatred people have thrown at it, aside from a reaction to some reviewers’ love of the gender thing.”

It was Ancillary Sword. I was reading along quite happily until she explained what an “ancillary” was. At that point I decided I didn’t want to find out any more about that universe or those characters, the lot of them seemed like a good target to sic the Boskone on. I didn’t notice any “gender issues” that haven’t been in SF since forever, but then I didn’t get far into the book and therefore have no opinion.

Kathodus also said: “I’m not sure how your reaction to Ann Leckie’s novel has anything to do with building Lego caricatures or slagging her for being nominated.”

Only that I didn’t like the book, and yet I am not slagging Ann Leckie. Because that would be idiotic, right? Sadly, the same cannot be said of our host, and many others. They seem to feel that the very fact of a Correia book being nominated is some kind of terrible thing, and that destroying his reputation is an appropriate response. Three years running, that’s been their response.

Speaking of,

George Kirby said: ” He was knocked off the ballot because pups decided to freep the nomination process.”

Yeah. You mean some people who in previous years didn’t know they could vote for Campbell and Hugo found out they could, and then did.

Right, he has nothing to worry about with all the vicious slanders of him spread so thick and so wide that his wife’s friends were calling her to make sure she was okay because she apparently lived with a madman.

thephantom182: “I want an end to the default of binary gender in science fiction stories.” Not what one expects from a fan. More what somebody hijacking the genre for political ends would say.

It sounds to me what would be said by someone voicing their opinion on the SFF genre. One which you are saying they shouldn’t be allowed to have.

Just as you are saying that the vast majority of Worldcon members shouldn’t be allowed to give their Hugo awards to the books and stories they love because you think those books and stories are horrible.

You know JJ, repeating the same falsehood over and over doesn’t turn it into the truth. I know you -want- it to be true, but it just isn’t.

Alex McFarlane can have any sort of insane opinion she likes. Both as a matter of principle, and because as a practical matter there’s no way to change her tiny, deranged mind short of chopping off her tiny head. There are people in the world who will do that, because they are determined you will have their opinion or none at all. Safe to say, I am not one of those.

There are also people who will call up her employers and threaten boycotts etc. if they don’t fire and disavow her, take down the post, and grovel for forgiveness. There’s a lot of that going around lately. Shirtstorm springs forcibly to mind. A new SJW innovation, always looking for new ways to make people shut up. I’m not one of those either.

No JJ, my total contribution was talking on teh interwebz, paying money and voting. I’m ALLOWED TO VOTE. I voted for stuff I liked. I did not vote for Noah Ward, because I don’t like Noah. I did not vote for any of the crap you like because it’s intolerable crap. All covered under the rules. I’m allowed not to like the crap you like. You seem to be having a problem getting that.

The very fact that I and others voted against you has driven you and Mr. Felpatron into a frenzy for three years now.

So you go right ahead and characterize my voicing of a contrary opinion as “…Worldcon members shouldn’t be allowed to give their Hugo awards to the books and stories they love…” as much as you want, but it doesn’t make it true. I’m a freaking Worldcon member old son. Paid money, joined up. Deal with it.

Your consistent misrepresentation does however make my point for me. So keep on keeping on, JJ. You’re one of my best salesmen.

“I don’t enjoy stories with a default binary gender. I’m not going to read them” could be the statement of a fan. “I want to end the default of binary gender in science fiction” is the statement of a person intending to highjack the field for political ends. This is not that difficult to distinguish.

thephantom182: I’m allowed not to like the crap you like. You seem to be having a problem getting that. The very fact that I and others voted against you has driven you and Mr. Felpatron into a frenzy for three years now. See, what you -really- want is to impose your taste on the genre.

On the contrary. I’ve made it quite clear that I believe everyone is entitled to like whatever they like. What upset Worldcon members wasn’t that other people liked different things. It’s that those other people came in, gamed the nominating process, tried to force Worldcon members to give their Hugo Awards to crappy Puppy works, and then screamed holy hell about how unfair it was when the Worldcon members declined to do so.

And how, exactly, does Worldcon members giving Hugo Awards to what they like in any way amount to trying to “impose their taste on the genre”? They’re giving awards to what they like. They’re not telling other people that they can’t like other things.

Please explain how Worldcon members are, according to you, “trying to impose their taste on the genre”.

JJ said: “It’s that those other people came in, gamed the nominating process, tried to force Worldcon members to give their Hugo Awards to crappy Puppy works, and then screamed holy hell about how unfair it was when the Worldcon members declined to do so.”

Yes, of course JJ. “Gamed the nominating process” by buying a f-ing membership and voting. Seriously, don’t you guys ever get tired of the endless BS? You’ve been screaming about Correia for four years now. Last year was not the first year of your bad behavior, just the most egregious and publicly humiliating.

And yes, you most certainly are telling people they’re not allowed to like things. That communication is loud and clear. To wit: ” … the unintentionally hilarious Parliament of Beast and Birds?” ‘Because only a -bumpkin- could like that, Phantom.’ The subtext is 120db at the back of the hall.

And just to repeat, I’m a Worldcon member JJ. All the Puppies are Worldcon members. Because ya cain’t vote unless ya joins up! Clearly that’s a problem for you. A real burr under your saddle. Hence my point.

I’m fascinated to see how you inclusive, tolerant, CARING Worldcon people finally arrange to purge Puppies from the ranks of Hugo voters. No doubt it will be very inclusive.

How do I want you puppy kicking assholes to vote? I don’t care a damn what you do. Never did.
I’m going to do what I want, and y’all are going to continue to try to stop me. Because that’s how you roll.

I predict you will:

1) block vote Noah again.
2) smear anyone nominated by Sad Puppies. Again.
3) have endless tantrums because How Dare They!
4) continue to pretend this is all the fault of Sad Puppies, when it’s your own doing.
5) come up with some sort of Byzantine rules lawyering bullshit to exclude anything those Sad Puppies do.

The Puppies gamed the nominating process by voting according to a slate rather than each individual voting based solely on their own reading and preferences. You know this. Quit pretending otherwise.

” … the unintentionally hilarious Parliament of Beast and Birds?”

This is someone expressing their opinion. Please explain how this is telling other people they are not allowed to like the story.

No one has any interest in “purging” Puppies. Worldcon members just want the Puppies, who are only a small minority of Worldcon members, to stop demanding that Hugos be given where the vast majority of Worldcon members feel they are not deserved.

Once again, stop ducking the question: please explain how Worldcon members giving their Hugo awards to the things they enjoy is ““trying to impose their taste on the genre”.

JJ, this is your argument: When you vote, that’s an “opinion.” When I vote, it’s “according to a slate”. Because you are a “Worldcon member” and I am a “Puppy” interloper/vandal/asshole.

It’s not much of an argument. More of a tantrum.

And the truth is, “slate” is a convenient figleaf to hide the fact that you just can’t stand Conservative writers, stories and ideas. If it wasn’t slates it would be some other bullshit you made up. You know it, I know it.

As for “trying to impose their taste on the genre”, have you been to a bookstore lately? Not to mention, has it escaped your attention that Alex McFarlane writes for TOR.com, the blog of the biggest SF publisher in the world? The same publisher whose EMPLOYEES have been slagging not only Sad Puppies, and not only individual authors who were nominated by SP, but authors who have contracts with TOR as well. Not to mention lots of devoted liberals in the Lamestream Media putting the boot in the last two years. Really classy stuff there.

So really, you’re just kidding yourself. I’m calling you on it. Furthermore I’m disgusted by the thin gruel coming out of most publishers these days, and I’m voicing my opinion is a way I know they’ll hear.

Lastly, there’s this bit here where you say: “Worldcon members just want the Puppies, who are only a small minority of Worldcon members, to stop demanding that Hugos be given where the vast majority of Worldcon members feel they are not deserved.”

Yeah, if we’re such a minority and you’re such a vast majority, you’ll have your way won’t you? So why the uproar, JJ?

thephantom182: “slate” is a convenient figleaf to hide the fact that you just can’t stand Conservative writers, stories and ideas.

No, a slate is when a nominator puts on their ballot things someone else told them to nominate. Are you telling me that you read everything you nominated, before you nominated it? Are you telling me you didn’t nominate pretty much everything on the Puppy slate?

Worldcon has around 10,000 members. Explain how only 10,000 people are “imposing their taste on the genre” by telling more than 25,000 bookstores in the US alone what to stock. Oh, please. Bookstores exist to make money, and they stock whatever sells and makes them money.

There are 3,000 publishing houses in the U.S. Are you seriously trying to claim that a blogger at one of them is “imposing their taste on the genre”?

I will also point out that Irene Gallo’s statement has been documented to be factually true — and then proven true again repeatedly by various Puppies since then. If people don’t want to be “slagged off” for saying shitty things, then they shouldn’t say them. Duh.

thephantom182: Yeah, if we’re such a minority and you’re such a vast majority, you’ll have your way won’t you? So why the uproar, JJ?

Yes, uproar indeed, phantom. Why did the Puppies make such an uproar to begin with? Why are they continuing to do so? The Puppies learned in August that they were a small minority of Worldcon members. Did they say “Oh, okay, I guess we were wrong about being the vast majority, sorry about trying to take over the Hugo Awards?” No, they just doubled the volume of their uproar, like little babies who think that if they scream twice as hard, it will get them what they want.

Why the huge uproar from the Puppies when they’ve been proven wrong, phantom? Why aren’t they admitting they’re wrong and starting to behave like adults for a change?

JJ asks, (again): ” please explain why it is wrong for the vast majority of Worldcon members to choose to No Award a category because, in their opinion, none of the works is Hugo-worthy.”

Well JJ, it is SLATE VOTING, which was arranged by blog posts on the Internet in -exactly- the same way that the eeeeevile and detestable Sad Puppies SLATE was arranged.

Slate voting is -bad-, or so I’m told.

But see, I don’t think it is “wrong”. I think it was an emotional reaction by a bunch of liberals who feel their nice cozy liberal club got invaded by uncouth barbarians. I think it was predictable too. That’s why we invaded. To show what a bunch of hateful Lefty wombats have been controlling the Hugos for twenty years or so.

You can’t pretend that 2,500 Noble WorldCon Voters all independently decided to award 5 Noahs the same year “because, in their opinion, none of the works is Hugo-worthy”. For the very important reason that all over the web were people swearing they would no-award every Puppy nom, because it was a Puppy nom. The cheering for Noah at the awards ceremony was a dead givaway. It was lusty and prolonged, as if they were all happy they had won something. And the Ass-terisk. Oh, and the pre-Award round table, and the skit, and the comments during the awards, and… Yeah.

It doesn’t matter a damn what the SP4 picks are, how they get chosen or who nominates them. The Forces of CHORFdom are going to block-vote no-award. If the Puppies sweep the noms again, then nothing will get a Hugo in 2016. Again. No Puppy nom will make it above no-award, ever, if you boys have the numbers. If you don’t, I expect there will be rioting and people pulling fire alarms etc.

Collectively, you’d sooner break the bat on the curb and throw the ball down the sewer than let anybody else play. This communication had been broadcast loud and clear. Thanks for confirming what was formerly just a suspicion.

When a Sad Puppies nom finally WINS a Hugo, it will mean you wombats have been outnumbered. That will be a good day.

By the way, Three Body Problem was tedious and annoyed me. I didn’t vote for it.

Camestros Flepatron said: “I thought you didn’t care? Or was it that the Hugo were already discredited? One day will you get ypur story straight? It wanders away from you from comment to comment.”

I’m sorry, are you having trouble keeping up? Here’ let me explain it to you again.

1) The Hugos have not been the acme of SF for lo these many years. I have used it as a ‘do not read’ list since the 1980’s.

2) I’m sick of that, and having discovered I can, I decided to participate so that the Hugos will cease to be the watermark of suckage that they currently are. My participation was to join, read the package and vote.

3) Your response to my participation so far is panic, dread, lies, smears and attempts to exclude. Three years running. Doesn’t matter what the Sad Puppies Campaign (such as it is) does, you guys man the battlements and fire flaming arrows.

4) I don’t care what you do. I only care what I do. What I do is vote for stuff I like, it is of no interest to me what you vote for, or how you do it. Nor do I care about your pretzelific attempts to justify your own bad behavior to your side.

Invaders don’t care what the invaded think. We expected to be hated, reviled and smeared, and y’all have amply met our expectations.

Plain English enough for you? I can use smaller words next time if you’re having trouble with things like “the” and “is”. Those can be difficult for some, or so I’m told.

JJ said: “Why the huge uproar from the Puppies when they’ve been proven wrong, phantom?”

Now that IS unintentionally hilarious.

Sad Puppies 1 came to be because Larry Correia decided he would demonstrate the WorldCon Wombat Brigades would have apoplexy and completely lose their shit if a Conservative author got a nomination. Or even tried to get a nomination.

He is proven right every year for three years, bigger and louder every time too.

Last year SP3 -swept- the nominations. Y’all went bananas.

But we are wrong, huh JJ? Man, I wish I could be wrong like that all the time.

No, I’m saying -you- are lying. I’ve watched this thing grow from the beginning, I know what happened.

Sad Puppies 1 is what happened -after- Larry went to WorldCon and watched the shenanigans. He used to want a Hugo, because he used to think it was the acme of achievement in SF/F. Then he saw the sausage being made and decided to call you on shenanigans instead. That’s what he said, and it’s all still out there in black and white for anybody to go surf it up.

It’s a JOKE campaign. He has a spokes-Manatee. Sad Puppies is a joke name. You humorless wombats have made it a war all on your own. As predicted. Why do you think we started calling you CHORFs? Because you act like that.

CF said: “Larry using humor doesnt entitle you to rewrite what he said or invent a new rationale for the “How to get Correia a Hugo” campaign.”

You are going to have to provide quotations, and I don’t mean one line taken out of context. The point of the campaign was laid out very clearly from the outset. You want to make accusations of shenanigans, it is up to you to back them up.

I’m happy to wait until your holiday is over, such an effort would be more than I can reasonably expect from a phone.

Last year and this year of course, LC had nothing to do with it. So your point, even if proven, is moot.

My participation began in 2015, so your point is utterly irrelevant to my particular case.

thephantom182: Collectively, you’d sooner break the bat on the curb and throw the ball down the sewer than let anybody else play.

The Puppies’ definition of “let someone else play” is to force Worldcon members to give Hugos to works which they don’t feel are Hugo-worthy. Why should Worldcon members be willing to let Puppies impose their taste on Worldcon voters?

And no, “No Award” is not slate voting. It’s a choice that’s been part of the Hugos for decades, and tons of people use it every year when a work does not meet their standards for what should be on the Hugo ballot. Go look at statistics from past Hugo Awards, and you’ll see that it’s been used a lot. For decades. It’s not something special invented for the Puppies.

Do I find it at all surprising that 2,500 decided to put the Puppies’ slated works below “No Award”? Not at all. I can totally believe that most of them did it of their own volition, and not because someone else was doing it. And I can say that, in all honesty, because I read all that shit. It ranged from okay to mediocre to execrable. None of it was anywhere near Hugo-quality. (Just so you know, I also No Awarded that horrible story “The Day the World Turned Upside Down” — as did more than 1,700 other people — were those people “slating” when they did so? Of course not.)

I also found The Three Body Problem a bit of a slog, especially in the middle. However, it had enough merit that I could see why it made the ballot. I put it in 3rd place on mine.

thephantom182: That’s why we invaded. To show what a bunch of hateful Lefty wombats have been controlling the Hugos for twenty years or so.

That “bunch of hateful Lefty wombats” are the Worldcon voters, and they have been controlling the Hugo Awards for more than 60 years. They created the Hugo Awards, and nurtured them for 6 decades. They own them. Why shouldn’t they be deciding which works win them? Why is this so hard for you to understand?

How is it “greedy” to want a Hugo when you’re an SF author? And repeating the same lie doesn’t make it true this time either JJ. I strongly doubt you’ve read any of those posts, you’re just playing echo chamber.

Oops. Totally fucked up the formatting there. Any chance you can delete my previous comment, Camestros, and leave this one, assuming I managed to close all my tags this time?

Please stop changing the subject. The question was not Day talking about Scalzi, but why was he discussed in the essays about pedophilia.

That’s some mighty fine hairs you’re attempting to split. This series of essays is an obvious attack on Scalzi, the WSFA, and Samual Delany, attempting to use child abuse as an Aristotlean 4GW poison so that if anyone criticizes the attacks on Scalzi, the WSFA, and Delany and puts No Award above said attacks on the Hugo ballot, those voters can be accused of harboring pedophiles. It is utterly transparent.

And your previous statement provided only the flimsiest of excuses for those attacks, via lies and twisting of the truth.

Specifically, twisting with a dash of lie:

The “expulsion” of Vox Day … made it clear that they now consider policing authors’ morals part of their job

The expulsion of VD made it clear that the WSFA considers it unacceptable for members to attack other members of the WSFA via the WSFA Twitter account. I don’t see any moral policing there, just common sense.

and, lying with just a hint of twist:

he has not only not tried to exclude pedophiles, he has rewarded them.

Well put, Kathodus. The cry of “pedophilia” on the internet is this decade’s version of an unanswerable slur, where any reply can be taken as further proof.
I think the reply I’ll be making here is that pedophilia is a very serious crime that can should be investigated and dealt with by the proper authorities, and anyone in possession of what they believe to be evidence relating to it has an obligation to put it in the hands of the proper authorities. If instead of doing that they are bloviating it around the internet in a badly-veiled attempt to smear their enemies, then clearly it’s not evidence of anything except their own willingness to subvert a real and genuine issue to advance their petty vindictiveness.

Ah yes, it was about misuse of the Twitter account. And the 9/11/12 attacks were a protest over an anti-Islam YouTube video. And JFK was killed by a climate of right-wing hate. And Michael Brown was a poor, harmless little boy who was shot with his hands up because Darren Wilson hates blacks. Uh huh. Sure.

Zaklog: You are right, it wasn’t really about misuse of a twitter account. It was about misuse of a twitter account, plus the following:
A. Violation of SFWA bylaws and policies
1. Improper use of SFWA channels
2. Publication of confidential SFWA material
3. Harassment
3.1 Personal attacks
3.2 Use of rhetoric and imagery associated with known hate groups
3.3 Rape threat against SFWA member by blog commenter
4. Threats of harassment and mischief against SFWA and members
B. Continuing pattern of actions prejudicial to SFWA
1. Attacks on members
1.1 Personal attacks
1.2 Threats by commenters
2 Attacks on the reputation and integrity of the organization
2.1 Accusations of corruption
3 Effects of Beale’s continued membership on SFWA
C. Actions which demonstrate bad faith
1. Declarations of unwillingness to obey SFWA bylaws and procedures
1.1 Archiving Forum material for later publication
1.2 Refusal to abide by bylaws and Board sanctions
2. Threats of nuisance litigation

And that’s just the table of contents. The only thing longer than the list of reasons why VD was expelled is the amount of time and energy he’s put in to whining about it.

@Mark Yes, and I’m sure all of the political trials that took place in the Soviet Union had a very impressive list of charges drawn up against the accused as well. Do you think a list of charges like this from people from whom I have witnessed vicious, ugly dishonesty impresses me?

@Mark Yes, and I’m sure all of the political trials that took place in the Soviet Union had a very impressive list of charges drawn up against the accused as well. Do you think a list of charges like this from people from whom I have witnessed vicious, ugly dishonesty impresses me?

Uh… you do realize the list of charges in question came from VD’s public statements, right? And that the final straw, despite VD’s attempts to excuse himself with “that’s not racism, it’s science!” would have been enough to get Stalin himself expelled from the SFWA?

That is an excellent point. For example the SFWA’s secret police clearly manufactured Vox Day’s blog post, emails & tweets. Given the close collaboration between the NSA, The Bilderberg Group, & The Bavarian Illuminati it was only a matter of time before the inner circle of the SFWA (aka Socialist Front for Worker Autocracy) began manipulating the internet. Now the SFWA:KGB with fundinh from Terhan run multiple false flag operations designed to discredit Sad Puppies by posting poorly argued rants on blogs. You must be extra vigilant lest you be duped by SFWA agents posing as Puppies.
Here are the tell tale signs:
1. They tend to be confused about puppy history
2. They tend to boast about how amazingly frightening they are
3. They get scared and defensive when people ask them about what books they like
4. They very angrily insist about how little they care
5. They drive Trabants
If you spot a secret SFWA provocateur be sure to tell everyone as soon as possible.

One issue with the Puppies* is they have no respect at all for WSFS or for Fandom as defined by that venerable group. I have been at least attempting to be respectful of the long-standing culture I’ve stepped into by joining the WSFS and voting for the Hugos (I joined in 2015, because of the Puppies). What I’ve seen from the Puppies is a combination of GG/MRA dork warriors (Rabids), SFF fans and gamers who vaguely knew of the Hugos for years and just now, looking into WSFS and the Hugos, have decided they are run by a bunch of nerds who need to be chastised for the books they love (Sads, some Rabids), and long-time F(f)ans who feel their taste hasn’t been represented by Hugo winners for a long time (Sads).

* I know many Sads are upset when the Rabid and Sad groups are conflated, but to anybody outside Puppidom, they look like one group, and it took the two slates combined to game the Hugo nominations.

Speaking only for myself, I’ve been aware of the Hugos since the 1960’s and have been disgusted with most of their picks since the late 1980’s.

If it was run by nerds it wouldn’t suck so hard. It’s run by Lefties who are using the awards and the SF genre to push Lefty political ends. As I said above, it was Alex McFarlane’s insane gender post that jazzed me into paying money. Some things just can’t be allowed to slide.

Incidentally, your comments above regarding pedophilia are interesting. As I’m sure you are aware, there is a push from somewhere to mainstream pedophilia right alongside McFarlane’s multi-gender nonsense. All we need to do is sit back and do nothing for ten years, pedophilic TV shows will be on NBC during prime time. Five years for Showtime.

I’ll leave it to you to decide if that would be a bad thing or not, I’ve made up my mind long since.

If it was run by nerds it wouldn’t suck so hard. It’s run by Lefties who are using the awards and the SF genre to push Lefty political ends. As I said above, it was Alex McFarlane’s insane gender post that jazzed me into paying money. Some things just can’t be allowed to slide.

A lot of what I’ve read from other Rabids suggests they see Worldcon members as a bunch of pathetic nerds.

That McFarlane post… I saw that, too, and it’s nothing that interests me. I don’t care about it. I do get more than a little eye rolly at some of that stuff, but on the right wing side, you guys have macho postures like eg Kratman, who are just as silly and over the top. But on both sides, that’s the fringe. I don’t think McFarlane weilds much power, and if he does, well, it isn’t much reflected in the Hugo awards.

Incidentally, your comments above regarding pedophilia are interesting. As I’m sure you are aware, there is a push from somewhere to mainstream pedophilia right alongside McFarlane’s multi-gender nonsense.

I only hear about that from people who are arguing against gay marriage. But, citations, links, etc., if you have them…

camestrosfelapton: Well there is a push from the alt-right and from Phantom’s side of politics against measures to protect people on the net and at cons from sexual harrasment and sexual assault. Maybe he means that?

Oh, well, that would make sense. I was wondering what sort of places he hangs out at, that they are attempting normalize pedophilia.

And you’ll note the emphasis from the Brietbart wannabes of harrassment & sexualized language aimed at young people on the net. They object to the consent aspect of sexual ethics precisely because it is aimed at protecting those with less power in society (e.g. children) from those who seek to use their own power to exploit people sexually.
Violence and sexual abuse of women in society is closely linked with the abuse of children.

thephantom182: Oh wait, you seriously expected me to share my likes and dislikes? Really? Interesting, given your tone. Tell me boys, in what universe would it be smart for me to let you have a free swing at the things I love and want to see honored? It’s a secret ballot for a reason, and you’re the reason.

I expect you to back up your ridiculous claim that Hugo nominations have been going to the wrong works — or admit that it’s just bollocks and that you’re just repeating the Puppy Talking Point you’ve been handed by your leader, but you can’t back it up by listing any of these amazing right-wing works from the last 20 years that you claim have been so slighted by the Hugos.

Where are your citations of proof that Worldcon voters “don’t give a f*** about science, fiction, or science fiction”?

Where is your “proof” that Worldcon voter are trying to “impose their taste on the SFF genre?

Also, where are those links to non-pedophilia sites which are trying to “mainstream” pedophilia?

You haven’t provided any of this evidence to back up any of your utterly ridiculous claims, because your claims are complete shyte, and no such proof exists.

JJ the broken record said: “I expect you to back up your ridiculous claim that Hugo nominations have been going to the wrong works…”

Do you?

Maybe you should READ WHAT I SAID ABOVE when I mentioned Ancilary Whatsit which I quit in self defense, the asinine Upside Down story which I quit in a red rage, or Redshirts which I can’t remember at all. I can also mention the Dinosaur thing and the “Rain that falls from nowhere” thing, two more legendary fails, plus the much vaunted and hullabalooed 3 Body Problem which could best be described as tediously anti-human…

I can’t be bothered to dig farther into the manure pile, that should stand adequately for my “ridiculous claim that Hugo nominations have been going to the wrong works” I would think.

Anybody willing to countenance the ongoing nomination of works like that as representing “The Best In Science Fiction And Fantasy!” [trumpet fanfare/angel chorus] should not be the least surprised to find “barbarians” getting all burly on his doorstep.

John C. Wright may be a ridiculous Papist, but at least his writing does not actively repel and sicken me. I can read it without tearing the book in half and hurling it into the the garbage.

Your WSFS collective taste is for shit. Get used to people fighting you on it.

thephantom182: [I nominated] A bunch of stuff that got block-voted no award, JJ. This being such a safe space and all, you’ll understand if I don’t share much.

In other words, you nominated the entries from the Puppy slate. Well, I read those nominees, so you’ve pretty much proven that while you’re complaining about the taste of the Worldcon voters, your taste is, in my opinion and in the opinion of the vast majority of Worldcon voters, not good.

Which is why I’m wondering why you think anyone should take seriously your complaints about the quality of the Hugo nominees from the last 20 years (most of which you have not read). You can’t even provide a list of good alternate nominees.

thephantom182: ‘In other words it’s none of your business, and you’re being a dick as well, so I’m not telling you.’

In other words, “You’ve correctly pinpointed the fact that my complaint about past Hugo nominees is hollow because I can’t supply the titles of any quality alternate suggestions, so I’ll just insult you and hope no one notices that my argument is utterly spurious.”

Right, he has nothing to worry about with all the vicious slanders of him spread so thick and so wide that his wife’s friends were calling her to make sure she was okay because she apparently lived with a madman.

From what I recall of that, his wife’s friends found out he in some movement with VD, read some of the extremely misogynist, racist, etc., things VD had written, and contacted her to make sure he hadn’t gone off the deep end and that she wasn’t in danger. Then Correia amplified that into his wife receiving threats, because he’s a class act.

Hey, I just realized, you haven’t brought up PNH’s vicious, unwarranted, and vulgar attack on LG Lamplighter, yet. It can’t be because she almost immediately denied her husband’s version of that story, so what’s up? Saving that one for later?

“First, I think John has made it sound a bit worse than it was…but this is not his fault. I did not repeat to him all of what PNH said because I did not him to get upset during the reception. (I was afraid he would be very angry if he knew someone had sworn at his wife.)

Mr, Nielsen Hayden did shout, swear, and stomp off…but he was shouting and swearing at/about John, not at me personally and, actually, as far as swearing, he just used the phrase “tell him to shovel it up his…” You can figure out the rest.”

The so-called swearing was a single use of “ass” not aimed at LJL personally, and an eyewitness account has since confirmed that there was also no shouting or stomping.

First, I think John has made it sound a bit worse than it was…but this is not his fault. I did not repeat to him all of what PNH said because I did not him to get upset during the reception. (I was afraid he would be very angry if he knew someone had sworn at his wife.)

Mr, Nielsen Hayden did shout, swear, and stomp off…but he was shouting and swearing at/about John, not at me personally and, actually, as far as swearing, he just used the phrase “tell him to shovel it up his…” You can figure out the rest.

This may not seem like swearing to many of you…many folks speak that way normally. But I do not. Nor do people normally speak that way to me.

My first thought after he stormed off was; isn’t it interesting that he yelled at the one person in the room whose only reaction is going to be to pray for him.

I was not the least upset…but I did think it ironic that, of everyone present, I was the person who got shouted at. But I suspect Mr. Nielsen Hayden knows nothing about me personally, has never read my blog, and is unaware of the irony.
and
It was quite horrid and unprofessional behavior. He shouted in my face and swore. I was shocked really. I didn’t think someone who was supposed to be my superior (in the sense of me as lowly Tor writer) would ever treat me in such a fashion.

But she (or her husband) apparently deleted her comment on Wright’s post. I read it at the time, and it was widely reported. She and JCW both seem to have similar ideas about what’s polite and what isn’t, but it’s obvious that what happened was PNH didn’t want to talk about JCW, and left (stomped off), saying JCW could shove it up his ass.

Of course this is all being taken by Pups as PNH being horribly rude to a hewpwess widdle Chwistian Wady, but then, the Nielsen-Haydens had spent the last several months being slandered by JCW and his buddies, so it seems a bit overly-naive to expect him to be friendly. Given Wright’s misconceptions about what constitutes polite, though, I’m not overly surprised at their shock.

jj said: “I said that I expect you to provide a list of right-wing novels and stories which are BETTER than the Hugo nominees from the last 20 years, which should have been nominated instead.”

Anything at all by Neal Asher. Anything at all by R.M. Meluch. Or Ian Douglas. Or Tanya Huff. Or, God help me, Lilith Saintcrow lately. She did some enjoyable magic steampunk.

Anything I can read more than two chapters of without becoming furious or nodding off, pretty much. I’m not too interested in “Right Wing Authors” TM, I’m more interested in books which do not suck ass. And I’m sorry, Hugo Award Winners mostly do. The odd ray of sunshine does not make up for the otherwise unending bleak clouds.

No hurry and tell Tanya Huff she’s a right wing bigot. She’ll probably laugh her ass off right after she pulls your spleen out through your nose.

@Phantom – I’m starting to think you actually believe the things you’re saying. Wow. Sorry, man, but you are wrong. Also, fellow Neal Asher fan here. Really dig his stuff. Not quite sure how ancillaries were too grim for you but Asher’s world is fine, though.

thephantom182: Anything at all by Neal Asher. Anything at all by R.M. Meluch. Or Ian Douglas. Or Tanya Huff. Or, God help me, Lilith Saintcrow lately. She did some enjoyable magic steampunk. Anything I can read more than two chapters of without becoming furious or nodding off, pretty much.

And thank you for proving my point for me and pretty much destroying the credibility of your claim that Hugo nominations have been going to the “wrong” works: The fact that you can’t point to specific works as being shining exemplars of the genre is proof positive that you can’t cite which Hugo-worthy works have been overlooked.

“Anything by author I like” is not a Hugo-worthy book. Even authors who’ve produced fantastic novels will not do so on every outing (I point out Neal Stephenson and Seveneves as a perfect example of that).

Your definition of “Hugo-worthy” is anything you enjoy. You know, that’s fine — you’re entitled to feel that way. Lilith Saintcrow writes enjoyable “beach reads”. And there’s nothing wrong with that. I read “beach reads” all the time, and I enjoy doing so. But they are not exceptional, Hugo-worthy works. R.M. Meluch writes fun adventure stories. But that’s what they are — fun stories — and not exceptional, Hugo-worthy works.

Most Worldcon voters have a much higher threshold for a Hugo-nominated work than “anything I can read more than two chapters of without becoming furious or nodding off”. The fact that you don’t is fine, that’s your taste.

But it certainly in no way can be considered proof that Hugo nominations have been going to the “wrong” works.